Defense Tech: Binge and Surge


	Subscribe via RSS


	Archives by Date
		September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 See all Archives


	Archives by Category
		'Canes Afghan Update Ammo and Munitions Armor Around the Globe Av Week Extra Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere) Bizarro Blimps Blog Bidness Body Armor Blues Bomb Squad Brownshoes in Action Bubbleheads, etc. Cammo Green Catch the "Buzz" Chem-Bio Civilian Apps Cloak and Dagger Commandos Comms Contingency Ops Cops and Robbers Cyber-warfare Data Diving Defense Tech Poll Dissent Tech Door Kickers Drones DT Administrivia Eat DT's Dust Extra! Extra! Eye on China Fast Movers FCS Watch Fire for Effect FOS Files Friday Funnies Gadgets and Gear Going Green Grand Ole Osprey Ground Vehicles Guns Homeland Security In the Weeds with Eric Info War Iraq Diary Jarhead Jazz JSF Watch Just War Theories Lasers and Ray Guns Less-lethal Logistics Los Alamos and Labs M4 Monopoly Medic! Mercs Missiles Money Money Money Most Wanted MRAP Edge Net-Centric Nukes Old Skool Our Shrinking Planet Planes, Copters, Blimps Politricks Polmar's Perspective Popular Mechanics Rapid Fire Raptor Watch Red Team Retro-Futuro Robots Roll Your Own Sabra Tech Ships and Subs Snipertech Space Special Ops Star Wars Strategery Stray Trons Tactical Development Terror Tech The Deadlies The Defense Biz The Peoples' Site The Sunday Paper The Tanker Tango The View from Av Week Those Nutty Norks Training and Sims Trimble on the Case Video Lounge War Update Ward'z Wonderz You can run... See all Archives


	Newsletters


Edited by Christian Lowe \| Contact

Binge and Surge

According the Associated Press and thinkprogress.org, the Iraq-fueled tension in the Middle East is setting off a defense buying binge. Fears that sectarian violence could spill over into countries like Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia has those countries looking at expanding their weapons programs.

But, it isn't just the Iraq violence that has nations reaching for their checkbooks:

If Iran were threatened or attacked by the United States or Israel, its ballistic missiles could hit land targets or ships, and its mines could block the narrow shipping lanes that carry oil from the Gulf.

That scenario is pushing Gulf defense ministers to consider missile defense systems like the Patriot, sold by U.S. manufacturer Raytheon Co. They also are eyeing warships, including mine sweepers, and early-warning radar, Hughes [an analyst for Jane's] said.

So much for bringing peace and prosperity to the greater Middle East. But then again, if I lived next door to Iraq, I'd be getting bigger guns too. The real bottom line here is the very real and very scary possibility that sectarian violence may expand from low-tech militia and terrorists groups to nation states with devastating consequences. After all, the Iran-Iraq war cost over a million casualties.

We would be well-served to find ways to de-escalate a Middle East Arms race before it begins in earnest and leads to something worse. But, in the interim it might be smart to buy some Raytheon stock.

More at Al Jazeera (so you know it's true).

-- Kris Alexander

Comments

"Iraq-fueled tension in the Middle East"?

Seems like it was pretty tense before we got there. Like for the last 1400 years!

Posted by: Mike Burleson at February 22, 2007 03:09 PM

Check the number, Craig. I'd hate to think what a "Pat Roit" might be, but I'm sure it would involve prescription cremes or once-a-day pills.

Posted by: Ward at February 22, 2007 07:29 AM

Arms binge. Hmmm. I govern on the Arabian peninsula. Who is my biggest threat? Maybe its the dude across the pond who wants to run my Muslim world.

Operator, get me 1-800-PAT-ROIT (ABM division)

Posted by: Craig Landon at February 21, 2007 11:54 PM

Amazing... not a single mention, or even consideration, of the possibility that IRAN may choose to act in ways the Gulf States might find threatening or destabilizing, without any external prods. Which seems to be a very big part of this equation.

Because, you know, nobody out there actually exists or has free will and plans of their own except America (and Israel). No, it's all about me, me, ME!!! And the Jews, errr, neocons, of course.

Kris, precisely when did you become a complete idiot? You've previously shown some level of sense. Hopefully, at some point you'll return to that state by paying some attention to outside developments on their own terms.

Posted by: Joe Katzman at February 21, 2007 07:50 PM

Because, you know, nobody out there actually exists or has free will and plans of their own except America (and Israel). No, it's all about me, me, ME!!! And the Jews, errr, neocons, of course.

Posted by: Joe Katzman at February 21, 2007 07:48 PM

I have a gut feeling that although the war in Irak costs the US government a shipload of funds, the USA as a whole is making good business from all this (in money and jobs), but I would enjoy it if someone with a bit more knowledge (authority) could shed a light on it.

Considering the new oil/gas contracts, the rebuilding of the infrastucture, the supply-goods and now the whole region buying US (or US backed) weaponary. Plus the fact that the military buys weapons and ammo from US company's, and all the soldiers will spend a big chunk of their paychecks at home. (note: i'm not directly blaming US for making war for the money, but it certainly flows both ways)

Posted by: Macaca at February 21, 2007 05:03 PM

Ahh, there's nothing like spreading a little chaos--I mean freedom!
Democracy is on the march, or is that the sound of an army?

Posted by: Hoax Meister at February 21, 2007 04:37 PM

Just a minor nitpick. It'd take some very impressive targeting to hit a ship with a ballistic missile.

Posted by: Mycroft at February 21, 2007 02:53 PM

Alpine,
Bush pulled troops out of Saudi Arabia after the US defeated Saddam:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm

Maybe I've been duped by the neocons/Jews/military industrialists, but I don't think the Bush administration forces Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, etc. to accept millions of dollars in military aid. I don't think Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, UAE or Oman are complaining about the millions of dollars infused into their economies from the U.S. bases they host. Can you point to a news article where any of these countries have formally asked the US to leave? Personally, I think the US should pull out of Turkey because they don't have oil and they didn't let US forces attack Iraq from its bases there.

Posted by: chris at February 21, 2007 01:26 PM

Yes, the current Iranian regime does pose a security risk to the region but so does this Bush regime which doesn't even reside in the area. Since when this Bush administration been given the right to call anyone a threat to their own area? We don't even live there but we station massive military forces over there right at their door step all in the name of regional security - namely our own selfish interests in accessing the black gold. These events all play into the hands of the neo-cons and the military industrial complex. I wonder what would the neo-cons do if another country was to station carrier battle groups etc in the Gulf of Mexico and thousands of combat troops in Central America.

Posted by: alpine at February 21, 2007 12:51 PM

As long as the Iranian mullahs are in power, the Sunni Middle East will worry about its safety. Iran is stirring up trouble in Yemen now:

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/02/iranian_hands_all_over_rebelli.php

Everyone knows the Iranian regime is the problem, and the only reason the Sunni governments are buying more arms is because they're not sure the US or Israel will do anything about Iran. They relied on Saddam to keep wacko Shiites in check, and the US to keep Saddam in check. It would be nice if Old Europe reached the same conclusion as the Saudis, etc.. If the rest of the world doesn't want us to use force anymore, then let them take care of their own defenses for a change.

Posted by: chris at February 21, 2007 11:31 AM

House:

I agree that the notion of arms proliferation is not necessarily new to the region. (During my years as a Tomcat RIO I worked with Kuwaitis, Omanis, UAE-ees, Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Israelis . . . on and on.) But I think there is something to what Kris is talking about regarding the increased entrophy that recent shifts in the balance of power are causing. It's the basic "law of unintended consequences."

So if you have second generation fighters like Hunters or Jaguars and you procure fourth generation fighters like the Super Hornet what happens to your national attitude regarding hostilities?

Posted by: Ward at February 21, 2007 11:04 AM

"We would be well-served to find ways to de-escalate a Middle East Arms race before it begins in earnest and leads to something worse"

Begins? All of the parties in the region have been arming themselves to the teeth for the past 40 years. Iran's 'enemy' has has nuclear tipped ballistic missiles targeting their major cities for 20 years now.
The notion that an arms race hasn't begun in earnest already in the ME is nonsense.

Posted by: j house at February 21, 2007 10:36 AM

"If Iran were threatened or attacked by the United States or Israel, its ballistic missiles could hit land targets or ships, and its mines could block the narrow shipping lanes that carry oil from the Gulf."

So Iran wouldn't be a threat but for the threat of attack from the U.S. (and presumably the very existence of Israel)?

How about, "if Iran...":

1) Had a lunatic with an end-time fixation for a president who was fond of predicting the eradication of Israel.

2) Was hell bent on pursuing nuclear weapons.

3) Was ruled by a theocracy who had done little or nothing to address the nations crushing economic problems, but instead, in an attempt to distract the population from the mullah's own corruption and incompetence, spent their time demonizing the U.S. and Israel.

4) Provided support for terrorist groups and militias that were destabilizing Iraq and Lebanon.

Imagine that Thinkprogress would overlook these factors.

Posted by: J. Brenner at February 21, 2007 10:11 AM

Binge and Surge

Comments

Post a comment